GR L 4371; (August, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4371; August 27, 1953
MARIA GUERRERO, applicant-appellant, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
On March 10, 1941, Maria Guerrero filed an application for registration of a parcel of land identified as lot No. 2765 in barrio Macapsing, Rizal, Nueva Ecija. The Director of Lands opposed, claiming the lot was part of the public domain. The parties stipulated that the lot was formerly part of the bed of the Pampanga River, which changed its course after 1937, and that Maria Guerrero owned the adjacent lot No. 1725. The trial court held that Guerrero, as a riparian owner, acquired ownership of the portion of lot No. 2765 bordering her lot pursuant to Article 370 of the old Civil Code. However, because this portion was not delimited in the plan and technical description, her application was dismissed without prejudice to filing an amended application covering only that portion. Both parties appealed, but Guerrero’s appeal was dismissed for failure to file a brief.
ISSUE
Whether Maria Guerrero, as the owner of the adjacent lot, acquired ownership of the abandoned river bed (lot No. 2765) by operation of Article 370 of the old Civil Code.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order. The lot, being a former bed of the Pampanga River abandoned due to a natural change in the water’s course after 1937, belongs to the riparian owner, Maria Guerrero, under Article 370 of the old Civil Code. The Court rejected the oppositor’s arguments: (1) that a prior cadastral decision declaring such areas public domain was inapplicable as it was rendered in 1923, before the river changed course; (2) that the Government had not abandoned the lot, distinguishing the case from Panlilio vs. Mercado because here the Government took no steps to restore the old river course; and (3) that Article 370 did not apply because lot No. 1725 was a homestead grant, holding that once Guerrero’s title became absolute, the land was private property entitled to all legal benefits. The application was dismissed without prejudice to refiling an amended one covering the proper portion.